• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote to take the Clippers from Donald Sterling?

Donald Sterling must sell his NBA team

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Grim17 said:
Again, I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making one of principal.
Click to expand...
No, you're not making an argument of principle, the owners will determine if Sterling hurt their business by his racist comments and will vote on that principle.
 
pbrauer said:
You're missing something very important in this debate. The other owners would not vote him out to in your word to punish him. They would vote against him because they felt what he did tarnished the NBA brand and therefore hurt their investment in the NBA.
Click to expand...

Bull. Their value is independent of his words. There is no "addition by subtraction" in this case. The value of the Clippers, under Sterling, may decrease - but that devaluation is not infectious.

Anyone who thinks that the owners aren't doing this (if they vote for his oust) for black appeasement is in a serious state of denial.
 
The NBA is a private entity .. If they don't want him owning a team in their league then the NBA doesn't have to have him. Not everyone can own a team. It is a privilege, weather he likes it or not he is public figure and his recent comments just make the league look bad, so he broke the rules.
 
Gipper said:
Bull. Their value is independent of his words. There is no "addition by subtraction" in this case. The value of the Clippers, under Sterling, may decrease - but that devaluation is not infectious.

Anyone who thinks that the owners aren't doing this (if they vote for his oust) for black appeasement is in a serious state of denial.
Click to expand...
I assume most if not all the owners are business people in their own right and will vote to serve their own interest whatever that might be.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What....the "principle" of privacy?
Click to expand...

Try reading what I have written and I believe it's pretty clear. Eight letters, it starts with an "A" and ends with an "N"

You have no qualms about the "privacy" of public officials when what they do in "private" comes out and damages them.
Click to expand...

That is correct... But unlike public officials, Donald Sterling was not elected by me and entrusted to make decisions about the laws that effect my life, or how my tax money is spent.

Please, don't base your argument on "privacy", your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


A leg to stand on?

What part of "I'm not making a legal argument" are you having trouble understanding?
 
Grim17 said:
That is correct... But unlike public officials, Donald Sterling was not elected by me and entrusted to make decisions about the laws that effect my life, or how my tax money is spent.
Click to expand...
Straw, that isn't argument, the argument you used was that within the league decisions, what he says should be private and should not be used against him within the league. Again, his privacy is not a defense, the damage is done, it cannot be "unsaid".

The point still was that if you believe in some "privacy" for him, it should extend to politicians if their private action have no bearing on taxes or laws.
 
pbrauer said:
I assume most if not all the owners are business people in their own right and will vote to serve their own interest whatever that might be.
Click to expand...

Societal pressure is higher than profitability here. All the owners have to "prove" they're not racist by being hypocritical here - as if what Sterling did was a cardinal sin.
 
Grim17 said:
He did not publicly make racist comments or in any way act in such a manner that any reasonable person could conclude put the league, it's members, or other owners at financial risk.
Click to expand...
You are arguing that Adam Silver is an unreasonable person, that the league leadership is unreasonable.
 
Gipper said:
Societal pressure is higher than profitability here. All the owners have to "prove" they're not racist by being hypocritical here - as if what Sterling did was a cardinal sin.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and that's all it is. I don't believe smart business people make decisions that way.
 
pbrauer said:
That's your opinion, and that's all it is. I don't believe smart business people make decisions that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet you think CEOs who get fired for stupid tweets are actually getting fired for "restructuring" purposes too.
 
Grim17 said:
Try reading what I have written and I believe it's pretty clear. Eight letters, it starts with an "A" and ends with an "N"



That is correct... But unlike public officials, Donald Sterling was not elected by me and entrusted to make decisions about the laws that effect my life, or how my tax money is spent.




A leg to stand on?

What part of "I'm not making a legal argument" are you having trouble understanding?
Click to expand...
Did you forget the premise of your poll???? It's not Donald Sterling who will make the decision, it all the owners who will.
 
Grim17 said:
I don't care how racist, ignorant, hateful or moronic Donald Sterling is, this is America and as long as you aren't breaking the law, trampling on the rights of others, or causing harm to others (offending someone is not a crime) nobody has the right to take your personal property or deny you the right to conduct business at a company that you legally paid for and own.
Click to expand...
You are disregarding the contract he signed, the rules of the league and conflating "ownership" with license.
 
Gipper said:
Yeah, I bet you think CEOs who get fired for stupid tweets are actually getting fired for "restructuring" purposes too.
Click to expand...
I bet that I don't know what the **** you are talking about.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Straw, that isn't argument, the argument you used was that within the league decisions, what he says should be private and should not be used against him within the league. Again, his privacy is not a defense, the damage is done, it cannot be "unsaid".

The point still was that if you believe in some "privacy" for him, it should extend to politicians if their private action have no bearing on taxes or laws.
Click to expand...

You compared a public official to a private businessman and there is a world of difference. Public officials represent ME and make decisions about my money, my community and things that have a direct impact on my life. Therefore, I have a right to know who they are and what they believe.... Not to prosecute them or take their private property away, but to determine if their character and moral standards earn them the right to represent my views and beliefs, and make desisions on my behalf.

You're correct about one thing though... His privacy is not a defense... it's an American right that's afforded to every private citizens. If that weren't true, warrants for phone taps and searching your home would not exist now, nor would they have ever existed.

Forcing him to sell that which he owns and has paid for, not having committed any crime or inflicted harm on others, violates the principals this nation was founded on. The league may have the legal right to force him to sell the team, but that doesn't make it right and it damned sure doesn't make it consistent with the values and freedom the nation was founded on.

I look at it this way... The moment he said what he did, was he violating the law, violating the terms of his agreement with the NBA, or in any way, shape or form, should have believed his words would violate that contract?

You want to play thought police, that's your choice... I choose to honor and respect American principals, aka "do what is right".
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
You compared a public official to a private businessman and there is a world of difference. Public officials represent ME and make decisions about my money, my community and things that have a direct impact on my life. Therefore, I have a right to know who they are and what they believe.... Not to prosecute them or take their private property away, but to determine if their character and moral standards earn them the right to represent my views and beliefs, and make desisions on my behalf.

You're correct about one thing though... His privacy is not a defense... it's an American right that's afforded to every private citizens. If that weren't true, warrants for phone taps and searching your home would not exist now, nor would they have ever existed.

Forcing him to sell that which he owns and has paid for, not having committed any crime or inflicted harm on others, violates the principals this nation was founded on. The league may have the legal right to force him to sell the team, but that doesn't make it right and it damned sure doesn't make it consistent with the values and freedom the nation was founded on.

You want to play thought police, that's your choice... I choose to honor and respect American principals, aka "do what is right".
Click to expand...

Do you realize it's the other 29 owners who will make the decision and not Donald Sterling?
 
Grim17 said:
You compared a public official to a private businessman and there is a world of difference. Public officials represent ME and make decisions about my money, my community and things that have a direct impact on my life. Therefore, I have a right to know who they are and what they believe.... Not to prosecute them or take their private property away, but to determine if their character and moral standards earn them the right to represent my views and beliefs, and make desisions on my behalf.
Click to expand...
This means nothing, since your criteria was whether their private actions effect laws or taxes.

You're correct about one thing though... His privacy is not a defense... it's an American right that's afforded to every private citizens. If that weren't true, warrants for phone taps and searching your home would not exist now, nor would they have ever existed
Click to expand...
. Non-sequitur, the issue is whether the league can act on something he says or does when it becomes public. They can and will, since this is a matter of contract between the franchise and franchisee.

Forcing him to sell that which he owns and has paid for, not having committed any crime or inflicted harm on others, violates the principals this nation was founded on. The league may have the legal right to force him to sell the team, but that doesn't make it right and it damned sure doesn't make it consistent with the values and freedom the nation was founded on.
Click to expand...
Again, this is a matter of the contract between the franchise and the franchisee, you, like the horse, are trying to argue that something else trumps the contract of the franchise.

You want to play thought police, that's your choice... I choose to honor and respect American principals, aka "do what is right".
Click to expand...
I believe in honoring the terms of a contract signed.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This means nothing, since your criteria was whether their private actions effect laws or taxes.

. Non-sequitur, the issue is whether the league can act on something he says or does when it becomes public. They can and will, since this is a matter of contract between the franchise and franchisee.

Again, this is a matter of the contract between the franchise and the franchisee, you, like the horse, are trying to argue that something else trumps the contract of the franchise.

I believe in honoring the terms of a contract signed.
Click to expand...

Again, you are making legal arguments and I am not... This is going nowhere.
 
Grim17 said:
Again, you are making legal arguments and I am not... This is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
Grim17 said:
I don't care how racist, ignorant, hateful or moronic Donald Sterling is, this is America and as long as you aren't breaking the law, trampling on the rights of others, or causing harm to others (offending someone is not a crime) nobody has the right to take your personal property or deny you the right to conduct business at a company that you legally paid for and own.
Click to expand...
Um....yes you are making "legal" argument when you argue about what a franchise can do with a license contract with a franchisee.

It is called "contract law", you are discussing, debating it.

Your argument goes nowhere.
 
Grim17 said:
Again, you are making legal arguments and I am not... This is going nowhere.
Click to expand...

Again, its up to the 29 owners who'll make the decision, not Donald Sterling.
 
Grim17 said:
You compared a public official to a private businessman and there is a world of difference. Public officials represent ME and make decisions about my money, my community and things that have a direct impact on my life. Therefore, I have a right to know who they are and what they believe.... Not to prosecute them or take their private property away, but to determine if their character and moral standards earn them the right to represent my views and beliefs, and make desisions on my behalf.
Click to expand...

That is true, but as a customer there are times I would like to know about who I am doing business with. There is nothing wrong with that.

You're correct about one thing though... His privacy is not a defense... it's an American right that's afforded to every private citizens. If that weren't true, warrants for phone taps and searching your home would not exist now, nor would they have ever existed.
Click to expand...

And that right protects you from the government and that is not the issue here. That is the point. He has a right to privacy but that privacy was violated and he is free to sue the people who released it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is out there. Now he could avoid the NBA sanctions if he can prove the NBA set him up, but other than that his privacy is not relevant.

Forcing him to sell that which he owns and has paid for, not having committed any crime or inflicted harm on others, violates the principals this nation was founded on. The league may have the legal right to force him to sell the team, but that doesn't make it right and it damned sure doesn't make it consistent with the values and freedom the nation was founded on.
Click to expand...

Again, principles are not the point here. You can say it isn't right but that has about as much weight as those who think that CEOs shouldn't get paid as much as they do. And while it is consistent with the freedom this country is founded on because the NBA is free to create the rules their company lives under. You seem to just be angry that he got caught.

I look at it this way... The moment he said what he did, was he violating the law, violating the terms of his agreement with the NBA, or in any way, shape or form, should have believed his words would violate that contract?
Click to expand...

None of that matters, you can't unring the bell. His words create an image that hurts the NBA and that is what the problem is.

You want to play thought police, that's your choice... I choose to honor and respect American principals, aka "do what is right".
Click to expand...

Again no thought police. The reaction of the NBA is due to the direct damage done to the brand. As for honoring and respecting the American principles well the right for a company to have its own rules and by-laws is as American as it comes.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um....yes you are making "legal" argument when you argue about what a franchise can do with a license contract with a franchisee.

It is called "contract law", you are discussing, debating it.

Your argument goes nowhere.
Click to expand...

The op asked how would you vote... I never specified that your choice had to be based on a specific set of paramiters. Your vote can be based on anything and mine happens to be on American principals. Making a legal argument based on the terms of his agreement with the NBA is your choice, but it isn't mine.

Just because he may have indeed violated that contract, that does not mean he automatically has to sell the team, otherwise there would be no need for a vote. It's obvious you would vote to boot him out and I respect that, but I would not, something you obviously do not understand nor respect.
 
I wonder how this would play out if Mr. Sterling was under fire for expressing an opinion that is controversial, but on a side that those on the far-wrong tend to favor, such as supporting “gay marriage” or drug legalization. I rather suspect that the very same people who are defending the efforts to punish him for expressing the opinion that he did would be his staunchest defenders if that was the case. The far wrong is all for free thought and free speech, as long as you only use it for thoughts and speech with which they agree.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
The op asked how would you vote... I never specified that your choice had to be based on a specific set of paramiters. Your vote can be based on anything and mine happens to be on American principals. Making a legal argument based on the terms of his agreement with the NBA is your choice, but it isn't mine.
Click to expand...
LOL...I just got done reposting your own argument justifying YOUR vote:

"nobody has the right to take your personal property or deny you the right to conduct business at a company that you legally paid for and own."

Again, you are arguing your vote in terms of the contract between the franchise and the franchisee, ie contract law.



Just because he may have indeed violated that contract, that does not mean he automatically has to sell the team, otherwise there would be no need for a vote.
Click to expand...
Straw, I never brought up anything about "automatic".
It's obvious you would vote to boot him out and I respect that, but I would not, something you obviously do not understand nor respect.
Click to expand...
Why in the **** would I have to "respect" anything you say, especially when it is diverting from the fact that I am trying to get you to realize that you were arguing about contract law, and like the horse, you think that other things should trump the contract.

And I am still waiting for you to explain how Adam Silver is being unreasonable in his decision of this contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom